279 So.3d 752
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant Quinton Alford appealed probation conditions imposed after convictions for kidnapping and sexual battery, including sex-offender probation of ten and three years respectively.
- Two special probation conditions restricted internet use: (1) a prohibition on downloading, accessing, or utilizing social media/other social networking; (2) a prohibition on accessing the internet/computer services except for work and shopping until a treatment-provider-approved safety plan, with an explicit "NO ACCESS TO SOCIAL MEDIA" clause.
- Alford argued these conditions are overbroad under the First Amendment and relied on Packingham v. North Carolina, asserting the restrictions prevent access to news, employment, political speech, and communication with officials.
- The trial court denied Alford's motion to declare section 948.30(1) unconstitutional; Alford appealed the probation conditions.
- The Second District recognized a key distinction: Packingham struck a statute that imposed lifetime, post-sentence internet restrictions, while Alford’s restrictions are sentencing conditions during supervised probation.
- The court surveyed federal and state decisions distinguishing Packingham and held that Packingham does not control probation/supervision conditions; it affirmed the probation conditions as constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special probation conditions banning social media and restricting internet use violate the First Amendment | Alford: conditions are overbroad, not narrowly tailored; prohibit access to news, political speech, job searches, and communication with officials (relying on Packingham) | State: conditions are valid terms of supervised probation authorized by statute and distinguishable from a post-sentence statutory ban addressed in Packingham | Court: Packingham does not control probation conditions; distinction between post-sentence statutory ban and supervisory conditions is dispositive; conditions are constitutional and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (Supreme Court held a statute criminalizing registered sex offenders' access to social-media websites was not narrowly tailored and violated the First Amendment)
- United States v. Antczak, [citation="753 F. App'x 705"] (11th Cir. 2018) (held Packingham addressed a different issue and does not plainly apply to supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Halverson, 897 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2018) (explained Packingham involved post-sentence statutory bans and does not plainly extend to supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (applied Packingham to invalidate a total internet ban during supervised release)